Gov. Cuomo's Gun Control Push Already Hit A Wall In Albany

486px-Andrew_Cuomo_by_Pat_Arnow_cropped.jpeg
Did anyone expect this to go smoothly at all? Doubtful.

Echoing sentiments from both President Obama and Mayor Bloomberg, we learned last week that Governor Andrew Cuomo planned on making gun control a top priority after the Newtown tragedy. His administration called for tougher background checks for registration, a wider scope for New York's already-existent assault weapons ban and, most significantly, a magazine ban that would limit gun owners to seven bullets a clip. The final measure mentioned would be the strictest of its kind in the nation.

However, as per usual, a push for gun control has been met with clear opposition from both inside and outside of Albany. The first time we reported this, we mentioned that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association - a quasi-NRA offshoot lobbying group - was literally up in arms over the proposals, arguing that the Wayne LaPierre Approach to put guns in schools was best fit to protect our children.

Next week, Mr. Cuomo will deliver his State of the State address. It was expected that he'd announce some sort of deal or compromise on the issue beforehand. But, now, it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon.

According to the Daily News, an insider source has told reporters that "the sides are still far apart," meaning "a quick deal is unlikely" because, of course, it's politics in the end. The source is referring to the Senate Republicans - a group that at first pledged to support further assault weapon restrictions soon after the Cuomo administration mentioned it would be pursuing them. 

Time (a week) changes everything. The Republicans "are bulking on certain restrictions," informing sources that this support wasn't an all-out support for the Governor's proposals... only a few of them, maybe. And this should be a given: in the original proclamation of support, the party never said exactly what restrictions they'd back. As we know, political strategy is all in the fine print.

As of now, the main block to agreement between Cuomo's Democrats and the Senate Republicans is what an assault weapon actually is. But, after Newtown - the horrific catalyst to this revived issue - shouldn't this no longer be a question? 

Regardless, what's most important here is that there's an argument happening in Albany; an action that hasn't been taken in too long. Something should be said to validate all this nonsense: the fact that this issue now has opposition, players and controversy means, as a talking point, it has arms and feet. And that's the most progress lawmakers have made in years.

We said on Monday that gun control vitriol in Capitols across the country will define the months to come in 2013. Governor Cuomo will announce his proposals in his State of the State address next week. The Voice will provide commentary then.

[jsurico15@gmail.com/@JSuricz]

My Voice Nation Help
13 comments
cunnanm
cunnanm

I am a first time AR-15 first time buyer in 2012. Bought my first gun this year as well. I am 46 years old and never had a gun until this year! I have always supported gun owners and their rights! I am a public school teacher and my son plays those video games, yet he won't even touch my newly purchased gun even when asked to! I want to teach him how to use them, but he is too scared to even hold it! I guess he has a fear that we good parents have taught him, that make believe is different than playing games! He got a BB gun for Xmas that he hasn't even touched two weeks later! Yet our rights are being questioned when a person that kills their own mother first is being used as an excuse? Get real Mr Coumo!!! You are in for a much bigger fight than you think and it may cost you a shot at being our President! Tread lightly!

sdemonte
sdemonte

The gun isn't the problem, period. If Lanza didn't get a gun he would have used a bomb, which can be produced easily with basic household ingredients and a Google search, or a knife or driven a bus through the wall... he was a criminal bent on killing others and himself, period. Here is the thing, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Obama liberals ignore the facts. I thought liberals were supposed to be smart and rely on logic, am I wrong? Killers kill and will always find a way, look at NYC, stabbings on the rise, pushing people into subways on the rise. Lets get the mentally ill help and keep guns away from them and criminals, not low abiding citizens. Keep in mind "assault weapons" are rarely used in most shooting incidents.

Here are the facts:


8,600 gun deaths in 2010 via FBI database. 90% of those shootings used handguns, mostly illegal handguns and they were criminal on criminal shootings, most of them.

Less than 10% used a rifle of any kind, example only 4 out of the last 15 shootings involved a rifle of some kind. Banning an assault weapon is like banning Pabst beer because 10% of all DWI's happen from Pabst beer drinkers. Speaking of DWI, 9,600 people die from DWI's a year, more than from gun violence. Gun deaths are 107&108th on the list of top causes of death in USA. BTW,  syphilis, in the USA, is 36th on the list. Cars kill over 30,000 people a year and you know what, a car is just as deadly as a gun regardless if you don't like the comparison... they both can kill which makes them a weapon and a person can be charged with homicide if they kill with a car as their instrument so there is a reason to compare the 2, like it or not.

Gun deaths are not an epidemic which is proven by the actual data and by how the media coverage of these events unfold. They lump years worth of gun deaths together to make an impact, saying 30,000 dead over 3 years is an impact statement versus 8,600 a year, right? They lump over a decade worth of tragic shootings to make a point, sure we remember Columbine, but that was 14 years ago, hardly yesterday but it makes an impression. The media covers these shootings for weeks, why? They are giving the crazy person what they want, but they don't care because the media has an agenda, ban guns. So, are gun deaths an epidemic? No, but, alcohol is though, look at the data because if you were really looking out for the "greater good" you would reduce alcohol consumption... of, wait, YOU all like booze, I don't, but you don't see me trying to ban your enjoyment do you?

aug151965
aug151965

THE BROOKLYN BRIDGE FOR SALE

I would like all of us to think about this. There has been a lot of talk about the need for more gun laws. There are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books now. Including Background checks, Mental health, FBI checks. Nothing would of prevented this mad man from committing this act.

I believe that our mental health community must do a better job in reaching out to those who are in need of help.

That job starts at home where a parent will first see signs of something concerning their child and getting help at that time.

The Xbox or other video games contribute to this problem.

Video games like Call of Duty America's Army or other video games all portray violent behavior. Theses are the games our kids play and I believe they desensitize our kids about war, violence and life it self

Now mix into the equation someone who is mentally challenged. Well you get my gist.

Lets not fool our self. This is not about more gun control, that wont change a thing. It is the way we parent, how we teach our children and the ability to restrict our children to what they view. The violent video games all have age related rating limits on the games. Most parents ignore the age ratings.

Children fantasize about the people they are shooting in theses video games and some children who are mentally challenged may have a hard time separating fantasies from reality and then they may play this fantasy out in real life.

BTW. The America's Army video game is made to indoctrinate our children and it is brought to them by our government and the US Army. Who is kidding who?

Education and timely help is the key for a real solution to real problems.

Not trying to make a political statement. Just being real.

If you think a gun ban will stop crime or stop anything for that matter. I have a bridge to sell you!

teebonicus
teebonicus

Cuomo et al have one glaring problem.

The Constitution and Supreme Court precedents, i.e. the current state of constitutional jurisprudence.

In 1939, the Court held in U.S. v. Miller that the types of weapons that were protected by the Second Amendment are those in common use by the people (like so-called "assault weapons") that bear some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia (like so-called "assault weapons"). In 2008, the Court held that the people had a natural, fundamental, constitutional "right to keep and bear arms unconnected to service in a milita, and to use those arms for lawful purposes SUCH AS self-defense within the home". (emphasis deliberate; the right is not limited to the home) The Court cited the Miller holding as binding, and said further, "[T]he Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.)

Now, these aren't mere suggestions. They are precedent.

Translation: No matter what horse doody liberals throw against the wall to advance gun banning and confiscation, such an effort is unconstitutional.

That is just a fact.

manserwc
manserwc

I am about as liberal as one can get. I just don't see how these suggestions from our governor provides any direct solution. We all agree that the incident that occurred was tragic. Though there are some major misunderstandings of how these ideas have any direct correlation or solution.

The clip in in an AR15 can be changed very quickly. Limiting the clip would have had no effect on the outcome on December 14th. Also, the size of the bullet had no factor when piercing an 8 year old. Unfortunately the only way we could have ended that massacre was to take Adam Lanza down.

New York is one of the strictest states in the nation on the purchase, possession or carrying of handguns. Yet the biggest issue in New York is the over 2 million illegal guns in the state. What he and other NY officials are suggesting is to further enforce gun control on legal guns. How is this serving New York citizens? How is this dealing with current issues? No amount of background checks, psychological tests, or punishment for gun misuse could have saved those children from a 20 year old who was not the legal possessor of the gun. What I ask for our governor to do is take the seldom intelligent suggestion from the NRA and place police in elementary schools as we do in many of our public high schools. In addition, increase the punishment for illegal gun possession and determine better ideas for getting guns off the street beyond "Toys for Guns."

The notion of a gun as being a defensive weapon is ridiculous. It is an offensive weapon. Unfortunately, the best defense against crime is a better offense. Leave legal guns alone, the three bullet difference in a clip again will yield no benefit or solution.

rbrooks4
rbrooks4

What the hell do you expect when you put out a bill expecting millions of law abiding citizens to turn in items they bought legally under the 20 year long existing ban you ALREADY HAVE?

I am an engineer. My wife is a banker. We are pillars of our community and we are LEAVING THE STATE THAT WANTS TO MAKE US FELONS.

Go to hell, King Andrew. I hope a peasant uprising catches you unaware. Tyrant in training.

peter.merkin
peter.merkin

"The Republicans are balking at the restrictions."  So it's the Republicans' fault for not swallowing Cuomo's extremist -- yest extremist -- bill hook, line and sinker?  What happened to the "dialogue" and "debate" on this issue called for by the media?  Consider just one aspect of this bill -- the 7 round magazine (or "clip" if you prefer) limit.  Why 7 exactly?  Has Cuomo or anyone else considered exactly what impact that type of magazine ban would have on law abiding gun owners?  Has anyone considered the cost/benefit of such a ban, not to mention its constitutionality?

Well, what it would do would be to effectively ban all semi-automatic firearms, the most widely owned type of firearm for self-defense virtually  all of which are sold with and designed to use magazines that hold 10 or more rounds (consistent with the current NY limit that's been in place for years) .  Hundreds of thousands if not millions of law abiding New Yorkers would be deprived of their property they legally obtained and essentially be denied the right to own a handgun -- a right found by the Supreme Court to be guaranteed by the Second Amendment.  All for no purpose.  Does that seem fair?  Does that seem like sound policy?  I guess if you want to see all guns banned it does.  But to most Americans who are moderate on this issue, it stinks to high heaven. 

aug151965
aug151965

That is total bull you are totally misinformed

tbromund
tbromund

@dcmontreal  I'm assuming that by "interesting", you in fact, mean foolish, ignorant, deranged and asinine..

Now Trending

New York Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...